The easiest way to fall into totalitarianism is

Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Mercator Group, leading researcher at the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences, comments on the social situation on the eve of the presidential elections for Polit.ru.

The most interesting social science question now seems to be this: what kind of “public sentiment” do we have, which, according to the president, was reflected in the last elections...

I agree with the president that the elections correctly reflect the balance of social forces, despite the fact that there is no doubt that administrative resources were actively used - both in the process of preparing the elections and in summing up their results. There is no doubt that attempts at falsification were implemented, more or less successfully, this is the final phase of the resource’s work, and the first phase is when someone is removed, someone is not allowed on TV, newspapers, pressure on the media. All this happened, but even if we talk about falsifications, then, using independent calculation methods, which are still questionable whether they can be trusted or not, we get differences from official data within 1-1.5%. 4.5% or 5.5% for Apple is a significant difference for passing, but from a support point of view the difference is small. The same is true for SPS, 3% or 3.7% - the difference is small.

Undoubtedly, due to the zeal of officials, United Russia acquired an extra 3-4%, not 37, but 34. So what? There is obvious support for United Russia, the LDPR, and Motherland, while the defeat of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is completely obvious.

And what can we understand about society from this?

The main conclusions from this are simple: this decade of confrontation between left and right or liberals and communists has ended. Something else has begun. Why did the right lose? Because they fulfilled their historical mission in the eyes of the voter, the voter got from them what they wanted: a market economy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, party organizations, freedom of the press - it is obvious. To the extent, of course, that it is necessary or to the extent that it is felt or concerns the absolute number of voters.

Multi-party system is obvious. Is our society democratic? Democratic. In this case, the slogans with which the democratic public came out in the early 90s are fully realized, we can say that democracy has won. Not objectively, but from the point of view of voters, naturally. And what the Yavlinites and SSPers threw onto the market, the mass buyer did not take, because he believes that he has enough of this product. And he is the owner of the market, he is a consumer. Although, of course, a lot can be said about the shortcomings of managed democracy and the deteriorating quality of elections. But all this is obvious to political observers, but not to voters.

These things do not confuse, frighten, or irritate the voter, but other things frighten and irritate him. In the new post-socialist, capitalist society, people are no longer afraid of going back; they already have little faith in such things as the Gulag; they evaluate Zyuganov’s party not as a crappy communist party, but as a more or less successful party of social justice. New social demands are on the agenda. First and obvious: people need money. The problem of filling the shelves with goods has been solved, now they need money, people need such things as social justice, stability, a compensatory feeling that we live in a great country and we are taken into account, but this feeling is not there, and for the sake of this phantom thirst they are ready to vote for absolutely an obvious circus performer or a dummy like Rogozin.

Here is a characteristic detail that is not paid attention to. The Party of Pensioners, for example, which is nothing at all, almost jumped over the 5% barrier out of nowhere, and if it had not been slowed down by the Kremlin itself, which created it, it would have jumped over, and only because it is a party pensioners. A very significant part of the people in the cities suddenly decided to vote for the farmers, because they don’t like the political party, and the farmers are just a nice word. If there were a women's party, it would easily cross the barrier with administrative support. So the current ideological brands have ceased to be effective goods: democratization, pluralism, market economy - these are already de facto and they are no longer interesting.

This leads to the same result: mutual disappointment, disappointment in the right, disappointment in Khakamada, which, from my point of view, is waging, from my point of view, an idiotic campaign, having unsuccessfully started it with the Nord-Ost tragedy. And all this is just a drop in the mill of those people who are waiting for the moment to go out into the square and say: that’s enough, this country needs order! Then V.V. A completely predictable coloring appears on Putin, he suddenly becomes the guarantor of democratization, it turns out that behind him there are people with much tougher positions, with more evil eyes, and then all liberal democracy will rush to Putin with the words “don’t leave!”

This option is also quite calculated. This is a basic assessment, which ultimately sounds like this: it is much easier and faster, taking into account our cultural and social background, to fall into totalitarianism than to move forward slowly and difficultly, developing and expanding the cultural background. Because it’s always easier to say: let’s take away from the too fat, and with strange last names, the money that they unjustly took from us - and the people will always support. It’s always easier to say: let’s execute 2-3 disgusting people on Red Square, enemies of the people, who maliciously do not pay taxes, when our elderly and children are gnawing, and the people will be happy to attend the public execution.

It is much easier to use negativistic stimuli, which are easy to incite in a crowd. And it is ineffective in a political sense to use positive ones: they say, listen, who is stopping you from earning more, improve your skills, open your own business - it’s long, difficult and no one will love you for it. I am not sure that our elite has the courage to follow the long, constructive path. Watching Zhirinovsky’s jumps and antics, I see that it is much easier to take a short and ineffective path. Rogozin is the same - he puts pressure on the weak points in the people’s brains.

But you don’t see the forces that could take a constructive path...

No, why, I think in a sense it’s Putin. No matter how much he irritates me as a liberal, I understand that the situation largely depends on him. As from Pushkin’s times: the government is the only European in Russia, and if it were worse, no one would notice it. Those. speaking objectively, Putin could be 3 or 4 times worse, and the West would eat it up, because stability and controllability in Russia are more valuable to them. Yes, they would have eaten everything.

Another thing is that it can get significantly worse at any moment, and we have no levers to stop it. The upcoming elections are a triumph of administrative resources, because all the heads of election commissions understand that their effectiveness will be assessed not by voters, but by bosses, who will say: did you conduct a good election campaign, are your support figures for Putin higher than the national average? If it is lower, then it is bad, because he is entirely dependent on the local governor, and the governor depends on the president. The money mainly comes from the state, not from private individuals. Accordingly, the entire administrative system was restructured at the center, and from there it expects smiles, money and support. De facto, this administrative vertical has been built, and it will act more and more shamelessly. They don't have to follow the rules of decency. Therefore, the elections, of course, will be uninteresting. The general trend is clear: a decrease in turnout. Previously they said that 70% were going to come to vote, now VTsIOM says that already 58% is very little. The main thing is the bad trend.

Maybe this is a sign that everything is fine...

Yes, and it is also. The election results were greeted with delight by the majority. People are very happy that Putin received such a majority. Quite literate people understand that the situation must be maintained, so immediately after the Duma elections, 70% said they would go to the polls, and traditionally in presidential elections the turnout is higher: people understand the importance. It’s one thing to choose a tsar, and another thing to choose a Duma, which is very auxiliary, as many believe.

Thus, the trend is downward, and there may be even less. In any case, there will be 50%, even if it is not, then this is a matter of administrative resources. In this sense there is no doubt. One must doubt how representative these elections will be; a significant part of the people may not be allowed to participate in the elections, depending on who is allowed to participate in the elections, because such a thing as 2 million signatures is a completely rudimentary, pseudo-democratic law. After all, it is absolutely clear that the one who has the administrative currency in his hands will collect these signatures without difficulty, and no one will check them: who wants to spoil relations with the president.

So the question is who will be allowed in. And this is where the intrigue lies: how smart this administrative resource is. The fact is that the stronger, the more stupid, they don’t even try to maintain decency: so that there are no problems, we’ll throw out both Khakamada and Rybkin, we’ll throw out Glazyev, we’ll leave controlled people like Mironov, Kharitonov, who will not leave the race. Because that public can act ugly and leave the distance by agreement, realizing that nothing will happen to them. So maybe they can be removed in advance so that they don’t throw anything away a week before the election. I don’t think that the administrative resource will behave very smartly; some people will still be removed and not allowed in. I think there will be no more than 5-6 personalities on the final list, three of them have already been determined: Mironov, Kharitonov, Putin. Well, there is already a wonderful character from the Liberal Democratic Party - Malyshkin. Although Vladimir Volfovich can, by agreement with the Kremlin, remove it.

Well, what do you think, will they leave Glazyev?

I don’t know, they may leave it, they may not leave it. This must be looked at symptomatically. If they leave it, it will mean that they are playing a relatively smart game. I would welcome that. If they don’t leave, it means that the administrative resource is delighted with its own greatness and has stopped adequately assessing the situation. This seems more likely to me. In fact, we are left only with the opportunity to observe, not to participate. Putin wins in the first round, and this is also interesting from a perspective. psychology: why in the first? What sparring partners will be selected for him. Will Khakamada be removed or not? Maybe they will remove it to prevent her from throwing mud at Putin before the elections, because her task is this: she acts as a weapon for YUKOS in the fight against Putin. So I think that she won’t be allowed either.

In any case, there will be a micro-restoration of the Soviet period, and not of its worst times, because now the economic situation and oil prices are quite favorable. But as soon as downward processes begin, we will get a crisis.